Edit Content

Main Menu

Fonts of Knowledge

More

Recommended Sites

banner

The Seth Material

The Q & A

As far as bodies of channelled teachings go, The Seth Material forms a significantly vaster pool than the more concentrated Ra (The Law of One) work. Which is not to grant it any kind of edge, per se. While both stress the importance of personal development, and with it expressly eschew a concentration on what Ra refers to as “transient” material – to the extent that physical-world “facts”, when cited, may be variable in reliability – they take distinctive tacks that may be part and parcel of their sources. 

Ra hails from a sixth-density “social memory complex”, while Seth is fifth dimensional (he doesn’t use the term “density”). Ra – “I am Ra” – puts an emphasis on the cornerstone that is The Law of One, the coming ascension/ harvest, and the principles of Service to Others and Service to Self that determine “progress” through the ranks of densities. Seth lays no stress on targets and goals, other than better perceiving one’s inner world (and thus dealing with/appreciating the outer one more adeptly). 

Ironically, given one might be inclined to consider the, ahem, “density” of information to be more difficult to follow, coming from a 6D source as opposed to a 5D, the Seth Material can become much more conceptually tangled, and this despite Seth’s informal, more colloquial approach as a contrast to Ra’s rather rigid “Earth speak is not my first language” delivery. When Seth is expanding on probable realities and counterpart selves, pinning down the particulars can be slippery and/or muddling, and I’m not entirely sure (channel) Jane Roberts and chronicler Robert E Butts (who penned the introductory passages to sessions and copious footnotes) always grasp what he was saying. Certainly, if they did, they could have spelled it out (and if they didn’t, they could have said “Look Seth, I don’t want to seem thick, but…”) Conversations with Seth (by Susan M Watkins), documenting Seth’s appearances at Jane’s ESP class, offers more back-and-forth in this regard.

I’m at the tail-end of the “Seth-penned” books – I doubt I shall get round to The Early Sessions anytime soon – so have formed something of an overview. There’s much that is familiar, some areas that seem unique to the material – counterpart selves, and I don’t think I’d ever come across Lumanians before – and as with the Ra Material, the information at variance with what, at this time, I understand to be the case tends to stand out probably disproportionately to the vastly more significant verisimilitude of philosophical/ metaphysical substance. As with the Ra Material, there are topics I propose to query further at a later date, but the following represents an initial toe in the waters. Several of the questions and answers here have appeared in an earlier post.

For the background to the Q & A, see the index page.

 


 

Q. Is the Seth Material of positive intent?

 

Yes.

As with the Ra Material, this is a preliminary question that is worth asking, regardless of what may seem “obvious”.

 


 

Q. How accurate is the Seth Material?

 

90-95 percent accurate.

Which is a slightly higher figure than the Ra Material (85-90 percent). As alluded above, when I read these channellings, the information that seems dissonant stands out much more than the greater mass that doesn’t. As a result, I tend to react with a slight “Shouldn’t the given figure be lower?” 

Areas I haven’t addressed directly below include Seth apparently averring to the existence of nuclear energy and weapons* (a particular source of worry for Jane and Rob at one stage is the Three Mile Island incident), overpopulation concerns, Earth and the planets (in a NASA-styled universe, while indicating that “The inner self knows what is behind the physical stars and planets that the eye views”), the area of history and past lives that seems to bleed a relatively high degree of “error” whomever you go to (Edgar Cayce, Ra, Seth), yet also singular precision in particular instances. In general, when Jane and Rob raised current affairs, be it the Iran Hostage Crisis or the Jonestown Massacre, Seth limited the focus to the cause-and-effect of the human condition and the predominant paradigm.

The reasons appear to be twofold. One is that, like Ra, he values the freewill of the parties involved, and infringing too conspicuously on the aforementioned paradigm – as opposed, say, to simply stressing that vaccines are of only relative value or outright inimical, which he does, or discussing the invalidity of both evolutionary theory and traditional (Biblical) creationism, because it is consistent with his inner-world-out cosmology – would be counterproductive. And also, and again, this relates to Ra too, and perhaps most cogently, heading down that route would be a distraction from the message.

This is not to suggest that the 5-10 percent is purely Seth picking and choosing the areas where he wishes to be on the up-and-up; with any channelled material, the likelihood is that the channel him- or herself presents a degree of distortion to an unfiltered message.

*Addendum 24/06/23: So, I was chasing the wrong conspiracy with that one, it seems. It’s almost inevitable that, when you think you’ve grasped the nettle of some subjects, you instead get stung to blue blazes. There’s long-standing theorising concerning the legitimacy of the nuke threat, and of nuclear technology generally, and it took me a while to warm to it (probably in the last three or four years). Warm to it I did, though, and it seemed Q & A answers were confirming the counterfeit nature of the subject (this, however, as tends to be the case, was based on misconception of the parameters of the response).  

 


 

Q. Is it the case that “the devil is a projection of your own psyche”?

 

No.

Satan is real. Satan is a negative entity (although “entity” is not the appropriate term; Satan is an AI from the universe/ realm of antimatter. See the Corey Goode Q & A for more on this).

Seth was aware of Satan’s existence. However, he wished to focus on self-responsibility and self-actualisation.

 


 

Q. Are there no “demons, except as you create them out of your belief”?

 

Yes.

Demons are self-initiated (thought forms). Satan can control these demons.

This is not to dismiss the existence of other malign entities that are not thought forms, however.

 


 

Q. Are guardian angels real?

 

Yes.

Angels are real. They are etheric beings.

Seth appears to reduce angels to dream-state contrivances, referring to a particular strain of dreamer – “a Speaker”, those who predated religion and first impressed “inner knowledge upon the physical system” – who would aid another dreamer: “The idea of guardian angels of course is highly connected here”. Generally speaking, anything inviting oppositional hierarchies (“The god-versus-devil, angels-versus-demons – the gulf between animals and angels – all of these distortions are impediments”) were evidently seen by Seth as a barrier to the message of inner work. Indeed, he stressed a “theology of opposites is… detrimental” and that crediting demons was a hurdle to such activity and “highly disadvantageous after death”. There’s undoubtedly a logic to accentuating the unchallenged – except by oneself – nature of spiritual growth, but one can also see that, through this tack, Seth (and Ra) weaves a picture that is less than wholly reflective of reality.

There is also, one gets the impression, a slightly laissez-faire attitude on the part of higher-density contacts in respect of the harsh, meat-hook realities of 3D (although Seth is keen to stress “I do not come to you as someone who does not know what it is like to be human”). It may be easy enough to decry concepts of good and evil from the lofty peak of 5 or 6D, or wax lyrical about the “just as real to themselves” nature of probable realities, but there’s a degree to which such relativism has practical limitations when set against dwelling in the physical. You can see this too in the impervious/ implacable natures of Seth and Ra when the health, mental or physical, of their contacts reveals disarray. 

 


 

Q. Was Seth aware of the Draco/ Anunnaki grip on humanity?

 

Yes.

Again, Seth wished to emphasise self-responsibility and the value of individual purposefulness.

Seth does make reference to ET/alien influences, but perhaps in part because he represents an ex-human, this is much more tangential than in the Ra Material (Ra is, after all, an ET/alien influence) . This seems to be both something in the future – actual contact – and something in the present (UFOs themselves). So he advises “telepathy will enable your race to make its first contact with alien intelligence” and it “will occur, in your time I believe, not too far distant, perhaps by the year 2001. 

When it comes to UFOs, “beings from other planes have appeared among you, sometimes on purpose and sometimes completely by accident”, but “I do not believe you will have any saucer landings for quite a while, not physical landings in the usual sense of the word. These vehicles cannot stay on your plane for any length of time at all”. Additionally, “the saucer or cigar shape [often] seen on your planet is a bastard form having little relation to the structure as it is at home base”. The way Seth refers to planes would appear to be transposable for Ra’s densities, to some degree, although “A plane is not a cosmic location” and “A plane is an isolation of elements where each one is given the most possible space in which to function”.

Also, on the Draco spectrum, Seth remarks at one point “In your system of probabilities there are no reptilian men or women, yet in other probabilities they do indeed exist”. Evidently, Seth didn’t want his readers worrying themselves about improbable actual reptilian men when they could be attending to the improvement of the spiritual vessel, expanding their consciousness and, in the process, overcoming physical strictures. 

 


 

Q. Is the Seth Material correct in respect of Lumanians?

 

Yes.

The Lumanians left Earth thousands of years ago. Per Seth, they were one of three civilisations that existed on Earth long before Atlantis. As far as I’m aware, they’re only/ first mentioned in the Seth Material. The Lumanians rejected war and violence – through limiting/ altering their free will – invented artificial foods so they wouldn’t have to kill animals to eat – and so became weak due to lack of proper nutrition and exercise – and possessed advanced scientific and psychic/telepathic abilities. They also lived largely underground:

They formed energy fields around their own civilization. They were, therefore, isolated from contact with other groups. They did not allow technology to destroy them, however. More and more of them realized that the experiment was not a success. Some, after physical death, left to join those from the previous successful civilisation, who had migrated to other planetary systems within the physical structure. Large groups, however, simply left their cities, destroyed the force fields that had enclosed them, and joined the many groups of relatively uncivilised peoples, mating with them and bearing children. These Lumanians died quickly, for they could not bear violence nor react to it violently. They felt however, that their mutant children might have a resulting disinclination toward violence, but without the prohibiting nerve-control reactions with which they were endowed. Physically the civilisation simply died out.

 


 

Q. Were there three civilisations long before the time of Atlantis, one of which was the Lumanians?

 

Yes.

 


 

Q. Was the time frame for these three pre-Atlantean civilisations 50-40,000 years ago?

 

Yes.

This suggested itself as a nominally appropriate period, if the Earth is 50,000 years old, and Atlantis is approximately 39,000 years old (these dates coming from previous Q & As, not the Seth Material).

 


 

Q. Was this a period “when in fact your planet was in a somewhat different position”?

 

Yes.

This, per previous Q & A answers, was still on the edge of the plain (whereby crater Earth is separated from the realm beyond the Ice Wall) but positioned differently. 

The reason for this move was strategic: for maximum exposure (ie opportunity for spiritual development).

Again, this was a new one. I’ve seen various suggestions such as different suns or (no) Moon, but not relocation. It’s notable that, while Seth uses the language of globe Earth, the fundamental point he is making proves legitimate.

 


 

Q. Was a race from another place in the Universe involved with the origin of Atlantis?

 

Yes. 

This race was the Pleiadeans.

Seth advises of a code of ethics that “originated from the time of Atlantis. Before that, these codes were given by a race from another star. This race had to do with the origin of Atlantis“. This sounds very much like the Law of One. Ra indicates that ETs (starseeds) were also involved in the development of Atlantis.

 


 

Q. Was Christ incarnated as three individuals?

 

No.

Seth tells that John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul/Saul of Tarsus were all personalities of Christ (he may mean the same oversoul, however: “These individuals were a part of one entity”). He also indicates that the twelve disciples were materialisations of the combined energies of Jesus, Paul/ Saul and John the Baptist. 

It’s worth noting that there seem to be wildly differing takes on who Christ was and what he did according to which channelled material you wish to interrogate. Some of this may relate to attitudes of the channelling parties (for example Carla Rueckert’s religious beliefs), but it may also have to do with the source’s intended “message”. Ra gives Jesus being crucified, for example…

 


 

Q. Was the crucifixion that of a drugged man in Jesus’ stead?

 

Yes.

Per Seth, there was a conspiracy involving Judas, “an attempt to make a martyr out of Christ. The man chosen was drugged… and he was told that he was the Christ. He believed that he was. He was one of those deluded, but he also himself believed that he, not the historical Christ, was to fulfil the prophecies”.

 


 

Q. Was Jesus born (did he incarnate as a baby)?

 

No.

Jesus materialised (as an adult). When Jesus next incarnates on Earth, he will also materialise.

Seth holds that “The three Christ personalities were born upon your planet, and indeed became flesh among you”. He also suggests the Paul/Saul Christ screwed up, and his will be the Second Coming Christ to rectify that and right Christianity (or replace it with a “new religion”). Ra, meanwhile, holds that Christ will not return physically (Ra also stated Jesus was 5D and discovered his ability “to penetrate intelligent infinity” when he touched and fatally wounded another boy while angry at him). 

 


 

Q. Was the Buddha a real person?

 

Yes.

The Buddhist religion, however, appears to be a distortion.

Per Seth, the Buddha was one of less than thirty great Speakers (the Christ entity being another). Perhaps a little like Dean Spanley’s ten great dogs.

 


 

Q. Was Joan of Arc real?

 

No.

Seth mentions, in relation to a member of the ESP Group, “a very distant connection to Joan of Arc, on the mystic’s father’s side, twice removed”.

 


 

Q. Were there cavemen in the Stone Age, our ancestors? 

 

No.

There were no cavemen in the Stone Age (there was no Stone Age). There were no Neanderthals. 

Seth indicates there “have been many Stone Ages on your planet” refers to “the men you think of as your ancestors, the cavemen” and “The Speakers, singly, existed in your Stone Age period”. Seth may be being analogous with the Stone Age (he refers to “cavemen” living in the deserted cities left by the Lumanians), but it’s unhelpfully vague, if that’s the case. 

 


 

Q. Was the Egyptian religion real? (but ancient Egypt not?)

 

Yes.

The Egyptian religion was real, but the Ancient Egypt of the pharaohs was not. 

Seth references the Egyptian religion. The Ra Material makes a greater play for the stylings of “Ancient Egypt” with Ra being responsible for building the Great Pyramid.  

 


 

Q. Are there probable realities, in which we follow paths we may have taken, but did not, in physical life?

 

Yes.

As Seth explains it, probable systems of reality are part of an infinite number of systems/ universes between matter and antimatter. His language can be on the opaque side, however, particularly when he emphasises their own intrinsic autonomy. The probable realities Seth describes do not, to my understanding, represent an analogue to the multiverse (which does not, as popularly – one might suggest so popularly, it makes for an express form of predictive programming, similarly to the simulated-universe model – presented, exist). 

There are probable pasts, probable presents and probable futures, and the probable system “is as complicated as the reincarnational one” (so that’s a relief). Seth advised that “as you read this book, you are but one of the probable yous”. Any given scenario gives any given number of potential responses on one’s part that are “capable of being actualised in physical terms. Before you make your decision, each of these probable actions are equally valid”. 

The difference with probable realities that are “discarded”, however is that “you have not chosen to actualise them physically”. Taking this further, these probable selves “are a portion of your identity or soul, and if you are out of contact with them it is only because you focus upon physical events and accept them as the criteria for reality”. This extends from the individual microcosm to “probable earths, all taking roads that you have not adopted” and, for extra boogling, “Each probable system of reality of course then creates other such systems”. And just to make it extra-peachy, “Each of these probable selves consider themselves the real you, of course, and to anyone of them you would be the probable self”. Yeah, thanks for that, Seth… “Probable actions emerge… into matter-systems quite as valid as your own, and quite as consistent” and “Probable realities are only probable to you because you are not aware of them”.

Why is any of this relevant to our Earthly experience? Per Seth, “To the extent that you are open and receptive, you can benefit greatly by the various experiences of your probable selves, and can gain from their knowledge and abilities”. This most frequently derives from the dream state.

My way of assimilating this is to place the stress on “probable”, however much Seth’s language tends to degrade the boundaries at times (in terms of our “definable” status). He says “You exist in the middle of the probable system of reality” and “you are positioned in the centre of a cosmic web of probabilities that is affected by your slightest mental or emotional act”. So, to my reckoning, ours is the only one “actualised” physically (although Seth would say each has its own actuality). If it’s otherwise, then possibly there were an infinite number of probable Seths – Seth having stated he is conscious of his probably selves – spreading an infinite amount of similarly probable wisdom to an infinite number of probable Jane and Robs, because all were equally fundamental in significance (or insignificance, as the case may be).

On several occasions, Seth refers to the dream state in relation to probable realities: “dream images have a definite reality. So do probable events. They simply do not appear concrete to you” and “The I of your dreams can be legitimately compared to the self that experiences probable events”. I take as a guide less Seth’s own statement with regard to probable realities than Jane’s in The Seth Material: “According to Seth, there are many other systems of reality in which we operate, all unknown to the waking ego. Not only are there universal systems composed of matter and antimatter, but there are an infinite variety of realities in between. Apparently, there are also ‘probable realities’, in which we follow paths we may have taken, but did not, in physical life”.

 


 

Q. Are probable realities the explanation for the Mandela Effect, a bleed-through?

 

Yes.

As I indicated in the Science Q & A, I’m still left with specific examples I’d like to follow up at some point, such as the ever-urgent case of Moonraker and Dolly’s braces…

 


 

Q. Are Seth’s statements on counterparts correct?

 

Yes.

If Seth’s explanation of probable realities can be somewhat obscure, those on counterpart selves can be even more so. Per Jane: “According to Seth, each of us has counterparts in other systems of reality; not identical selves or twins, but other selves who are part of our entity, developing abilities in a different way than we are here”. The soulmates idea is “based upon the reality of counterparts”. Additionally, “These counterparts are psychic relationships, formations that in the deepest terms flow into historic time and out of it”.

 


 

Q. Are counterparts simultaneous incarnations? 

 

No.

These arose less from thinking this is what Seth meant – although he’s aggravatingly abstruse – than seeking to clarify the “whole self” or “entity”. Seth enters territory of telling how he is a future self of Jane (and Rob) and gave expression to them initially (suggesting they were incarnations that wished their own independence, so extruded souls, if you like). 

Elsewhere, there is a listing of who was a counterpart of whom (and not) in ESP classes. I’ll admit I failed to perceive the distinction in this regard, except perhaps that the “entity’ relationship is there but the specific counterpart one is not, or inactive during this particular incarnation: “each reincarnational self has its own cluster of counterpart selves within its own time period, and that all are interconnected on nonphysical levels”. He provides assurance on the subject of interrelated counterparts that “This does not mean that you are bits and pieces of some hypothetical whole self”.

 


 

Q. Are counterparts individual souls connected through the same oversoul?

 

Yes.

Oversoul” is a term used by Jane rather than Seth, but it appears to be synonymous with Seth’s “entity”. On one occasion, Seth comments on how difficult it can be to verbalise his concepts – just try assimilating them, Seth! – and notes “You are not subordinate to some giant consciousness. While you think in such terms, however, I must speak of reincarnational selves and counterparts, because you are afraid that if you climb out of what you think your identity is, then you will lose it”. The best take I have, then, is that the oversoul/entity is a grouping of souls. I’ve seen it interpreted as a gestalt, or “pyramid awareness gestalt” so more than the sum of its parts (or souls). 

Seth informs us that Rubert (his name for Jane, whom he accordingly refers to as “he”, by her better known – to Seth – male incarnation) “was myself, Seth, many centuries ago, but he grew, evolved and expanded in terms of a particular, personal set of value fulfilments. He is now an actual gestalt, a personality that was one of the probable personalities into which Seth could grow. I represent another. I am another”. And “Ruburt and myself were offshoots of the same entity” Rob is also part of this entity. 

So, as Seth appears to express it, the entity, or oversoul, gave expression to additional soul units, or entities, or sub-entities. When Seth 2, or future Seth (which would be future-future Jane…) comes through, he advises “We are Seth, and whenever we have spoken we have been known as Seth. The entity had its beginning before the emergence of your time… Our entity is composed of multitudinous selves with their own identities, many of whom have worked in this behalf”. 

 


 

Q. Can a soul join an oversoul, become a part of it?

 

Yes.

The indication is that one does not, per se, have one’s – if Seth will excuse such individualisation – have one’s oversoul relationship from the word dot, necessarily. It seems the oversoul is not dimensionally defined – as in 5D, 6D etc – so we aren’t looking at either Higher Self or “group social memory complex” interpretations that come with some of the densities (Seth 2 above sounds a little like it is speaking from a 6D place). The idea of “preordained” oversouls would also seem to preclude such developing states identified by Ra, such as the move from 2D to 3D (in terms of the raising of pets’ consciousness). They have to “head” somewhere, if they’re going anywhere in oversoul terms. Ra suggests the “oversoul” manifestation (occurring late 6D) cannot be achieved in the negative, equating the Higher Self with the oversoul.

 


 

Q. Does All that Is/Higher Self/Source “It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself”

 

Yes.

This was an interesting comment from Seth, that “All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself”. Obviously, it’s an assessment made within the limitations of Seth’s awareness, but one wonders if it doesn’t suggest, to some degree, an infinitely unfathomable echo chamber.

 


 

Most Popular

What is currently passing for knowledge around here.

  • Send in the Clones: Donald Marshall and the Underworld
    Esoterica Now
    Send in the Clones: Donald Marshall and the Underworld
  • I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.
    Television
    I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.
  • The Seth Material
    The Q & A
    The Seth Material
  • I am trying to uncover a communist plot, and not a pornographic love-in.
    Movie
    I am trying to uncover a communist plot, and not a pornographic love-in.
  • Beyond the Ice Wall: The Races
    The Q & A
    Beyond the Ice Wall: The Races
  • The Appliance of Science
    The Q & A
    The Appliance of Science